Arena Beverage Corp. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 389
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Arena Beverage Corp. held a restaurant liquor license for Moon Township and applied to renew for the June 1, 2011–May 31, 2013 term.
- The Liquor Control Board’s Bureau of Licensing objected, citing missing tax clearances from the Department of Revenue and late/omitted validation/renewal filings; a hearing was scheduled and held on October 18, 2012.
- The Board issued an order on December 20, 2012 refusing renewal; Arena did not file a timely appeal within the 20‑day statutory period.
- Arena filed a nunc pro tunc appeal in common pleas court on June 7, 2013 (almost six months late); the trial court held a de novo hearing and granted nunc pro tunc relief, ordering renewal upon payment of fees.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed whether the trial court erred in granting nunc pro tunc relief without applying the required legal standards and whether extraordinary circumstances justified the late appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Arena) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nunc pro tunc relief was justified for Arena’s untimely appeal | Administrative breakdowns (Board failed to provide reasons/opinion timely; poor interagency communication re: tax clearance) prevented timely appeal | Arena knew or should have known reasons for refusal, got objection letter and hearing; no extraordinary circumstances; missed appeal due to inaction | Reversed: trial court abused discretion; Arena did not meet nunc pro tunc standards |
| Whether Board’s December 20 order violated §464 by not including reasons for denial | Lack of findings prevented understanding and timely appeal | §464 permits mailing refusal and later filing an opinion; Board’s objection letter and hearing made reasons clear | Board complied with §464; absence of immediate opinion is not administrative breakdown |
| Whether failure to advise that nonrenewal leads to permanent loss of license constituted breakdown | Board should have warned that failing to appeal would permanently forfeit the license | Licensees are charged with knowing consequences; law and precedent make forfeiture clear; no misrepresentation | No breakdown; Arena’s ignorance and self‑representation do not excuse untimeliness |
| Whether interagency communication (Revenue/Board) equates to extraordinary circumstance | Missing tax clearance despite taxes paid shows administrative failure | This is a merits dispute about tax clearance, not a basis for nunc pro tunc relief | Not an extraordinary circumstance for tolling appeal period; merits distinct from timeliness inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Olson v. Borough of Homestead, 443 A.2d 875 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (statutory appeal periods are mandatory)
- Union Elec. Corp. v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment, 746 A.2d 581 (Pa. 2000) (nunc pro tunc is an exception reserved for extraordinary circumstances)
- Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2001) (factors for nunc pro tunc: non‑negligent delay, prompt filing after discovery, no prejudice)
- In re Borough of Riegelsville, 979 A.2d 399 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (nunc pro tunc limited to fraud, duress, coercion, or equivalent)
- Replogle v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 506 A.2d 499 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (liquor‑license nonrenewal consequences; courts have de novo review authority)